Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet
community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol
Standards” (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this
protocol.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Abstract

This document defines the use of Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in identifying or interacting with entities that can communicate via the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).

1.
Introduction

The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is a streaming XML technology that enables any two entities on a network to exchange well-defined but extensible XML elements (called "XML stanzas") at a rate close to real time.

2.3.
Authority Component

As explained in Section 2.8 (Processing of XMPP IRIs/URIs) of this document, in the absence of an authority component, the processing application would authenticate as a configured user at a configured XMPP server. That is, the authority component section is unnecessary and should be ignored if the processing application has been configured with a set of default credentials.

In accordance with Section 3.2 of RFC 3986, the authority component is preceded by a double slash ("//") and is terminated by the next slash ("/"), question mark ("?"), or number sign ("#") character, or by the end of the IRI/URI. As explained more fully in Section 2.8.1 (Processing Method) of this document, the presence of an authority component signals the processing application to authenticate as the node@domain specified in the authority component rather than as a configured node@domain (see the Security Considerations section of this document regarding authentication). (While it is unlikely that the authority component will be included in most XMPP IRIs or URIs, the scheme allows for its inclusion, if appropriate.) Thus, the following XMPP IRI/URI indicates to authenticate as "guest@example.com":

xmpp://guest@example.com

Note well that this is quite different from the following XMPP IRI/URI, which identifies a node "guest@example.com" but does not signal the processing application to authenticate as that node:

xmpp:guest@example.com

Similarly, using a possible query component of "?message" to trigger an interface for sending a message, the following XMPP IRI/URI signals the processing application to authenticate as "guest@example.com" and to send a message to "support@example.com":

xmpp://guest@example.com/support@example.com?message

By contrast, the following XMPP IRI/URI signals the processing application to authenticate as its configured default account and to send a message to "support@example.com":

Many of these potential use cases are application specific, and the full range of such applications cannot be foreseen in advance given the continued expansion in XMPP development; however, there is agreement within the Jabber/XMPP developer community that all the uses envisioned to date can be encapsulated via a "query type", optionally supplemented by one or more "key-value" pairs (this is similar to the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" MIME type described in [HTML] (Raggett, D., “HTML 4.0 Specification,” April 1998.)).

As an example, an XMPP IRI/URI intended to launch an interface for sending a message to the XMPP entity "example-node@example.com" might be represented as follows:

xmpp:example-node@example.com?message

Similarly, an XMPP IRI/URI intended to launch an interface for sending a message to the XMPP entity "example-node@example.com" with a particular subject might be represented as follows:

xmpp:example-node@example.com?message;subject=Hello%20World

If the processing application does not understand query components or the specified query type, it MUST ignore the query component and treat the IRI/URI as consisting of, for example, <xmpp:example-node@example.com> rather than <xmpp:example-node@example.com?query>. If the processing application does not understand a particular key within the query component, it MUST ignore that key and its associated value.

As noted, there exist many kinds of XMPP applications (both actual and potential), and such applications may define query types and keys for use in the query component portion of XMPP URIs. The Jabber Registrar function (see [JEP‑0053] (Saint-Andre, P., “Jabber Registrar,” May 2004.)) of the Jabber Software Foundation maintains a registry of such query types and keys at <http://www.jabber.org/registrar/querytypes.html>. To help ensure interoperability, any application using the formats defined in this document SHOULD submit any associated query types and keys to that registry in accordance with the procedures specified in [JEP‑0147] (Saint-Andre, P., “XMPP IRI/URI Query Components,” March 2006.).

2.7.2.
Generation Notes

Certain characters are allowed in the node identifier, domain identifier, and resource identifier portions of a native XMPP address but prohibited by the "inodeid", "ihost", and "iresid" rules of an XMPP IRI. Specifically, the "#" and "?" characters are allowed in node identifiers, and the "/", "?", "#", and "@" characters are allowed in resource identifiers, but these characters are used as delimiters in XMPP IRIs. In addition, the " " ([US‑ASCII] (American National Standards Institute, “Coded Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange,” 1986.) space) character is allowed in resource identifiers but prohibited in IRIs. Therefore, all the foregoing characters MUST be percent-encoded when transforming an XMPP address into an XMPP IRI.

Consider the following nasty node in an XMPP address:

nasty!#$%()*+,-.;=?[\]^_`{|}~node@example.com

That address would be transformed into the following XMPP IRI:

xmpp:nasty!%23$%25()*+,-.;=%3F[\]^_`{|}~node@example.com

Consider the following repulsive resource in an XMPP address (split into two lines for layout purposes):

node@example.com
/repulsive !#"$%&'()*+,-./:;<=>?@[\]^_`{|}~resource

That address would be transformed into the following XMPP IRI (split into two lines for layout purposes):

2.7.3.
Generation Example

Consider the following XMPP address:

<ji&#x159;i@&#x10D;echy.example/v Praze>

Note: The string "&#x159;" stands for the Unicode character LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH CARON, and the string "&#x10D;" stands for the Unicode character LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CARON, following the "XML Notation" used in [IRI] (Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, “Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs),” January 2005.) to represent characters that cannot be rendered in ASCII-only documents (note also that these characters are represented in their stringprep canonical form). The '<' and '>' characters are not part of the address itself but are provided to set off the address for legibility. For those who do not read Czech, this example could be Anglicized as "george@czech-lands.example/In Prague".

In accordance with the process specified above, the generating application would do the following to generate a valid XMPP IRI from this address:

As noted in Section 2.7.2 (Generation Notes) of this document, certain characters are allowed in the node identifier, domain identifier, and resource identifier portions of a native XMPP address but prohibited by the "inodeid", "ihost", and "iresid" rules of an XMPP IRI. The percent-encoded octets corresponding to these characters in XMPP IRIs MUST be transformed into the characters allowed in XMPP addresses when processing an XMPP IRI for interaction with the represented XMPP entity.

Consider the following nasty node in an XMPP IRI:

xmpp:nasty!%23$%()*+,-.;=%3F[\]^_`{|}~node@example.com

That IRI would be transformed into the following XMPP address:

nasty!#$%()*+,-.;=?[\]^_`{|}~node@example.com

Consider the following repulsive resource in an XMPP IRI (split into two lines for layout purposes):

In accordance with the process specified above, the processing application would remove the "xmpp" scheme and ":" character to extract the XMPP address from this XMPP IRI, converting any percent-encoded octets from the "inodeid", "ihost", and "iresid" rules into their character equivalents (e.g., "%20" into the space character).

3.4.
URI Scheme Semantics

The xmpp URI scheme identifies entities that natively communicate using the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), and is mainly used for identification rather than for resource location. However, if an application that processes an xmpp URI enables interaction with the XMPP address identified by the URI, it MUST follow the methodology defined in Section 2 of RFC 4622, Use of XMPP IRIs and URIs, to reconstruct the encapsulated XMPP address, connect to an appropriate XMPP server, and send an appropriate XMPP "stanza" (XML fragment) to the XMPP address. (Note: There is no MIME type associated with the xmpp URI scheme.)

3.6.
Applications/Protocols That Use This URI Scheme Name

The xmpp URI scheme is intended to be used by interfaces to an XMPP network from non-native user agents, such as web browsers, as well as by non-native applications that need to identify XMPP entities as full URIs or IRIs.

3.7.
Interoperability Considerations

There are no known interoperability concerns related to use of the xmpp URI scheme. In order to help ensure interoperability, the Jabber Registrar function of the Jabber Software Foundation maintains a registry of query types and keys that can be used in the query components of XMPP URIs and IRIs, located at <http://www.jabber.org/registrar/querytypes.html>.

3.11.
References

4.
IANA Considerations

This document registers a URI scheme. The registration template can be found in Section 3 (IANA Registration of xmpp URI Scheme) of this document. In order to help ensure interoperability, the Jabber Registrar function of the Jabber Software Foundation maintains a registry of query types and keys that can be used in the query components of XMPP URIs and IRIs, located at <http://www.jabber.org/registrar/querytypes.html>.

5.1.
Reliability and Consistency

Given that XMPP addresses of the form node@domain.tld are typically created via registration at an XMPP server or provisioned by an administrator of such a server, it is possible that such addresses may also be unregistered or deprovisioned. Therefore, the XMPP IRI/URI that identifies such an XMPP address may not reliably and consistently be associated with the same principal, account owner, application, or device.

XMPP addresses of the form node@domain.tld/resource are typically even more ephemeral (since a given XMPP resource identifier is typically associated with a particular, temporary session of an XMPP client at an XMPP server). Therefore, the XMPP IRI/URI that identifies such an XMPP address probably will not reliably and consistently be associated with the same session. However, the procedures specified in Section 10 of [XMPP‑CORE] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core,” October 2004.) effectively eliminate any potential confusion that might be introduced by the lack of reliability and consistency for the XMPP IRI/URI that identifies such an XMPP address.

XMPP addresses of the form domain.tld are typically long-lived XMPP servers or associated services; although naturally it is possible for server or service administrators to de-commission the server or service at any time, typically the IRIs/URIs that identify such servers or services are the most reliable and consistent of XMPP IRIs/URIs.

XMPP addresses of the form domain.tld/resource are not yet common on XMPP networks; however, the reliability and consistency of XMPP IRIs/URIs that identify such XMPP addresses would likely fall somewhere between those that identify XMPP addresses of the form domain.tld and those that identify XMPP addresses of the form node@domain.tld.

5.3.
Back-End Transcoding

Because the base XMPP protocol is designed to implement the exchange of messages and presence information and not the retrieval of files or invocation of similar system functions, it is deemed unlikely that the use of XMPP IRIs/URIs would result in harmful dereferencing. However, if an XMPP protocol extension defines methods for information retrieval, it MUST define appropriate controls over access to that information. In addition, XMPP servers SHOULD NOT natively parse XMPP IRIs/URIs but instead SHOULD accept only the XML wire protocol specified in [XMPP‑CORE] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core,” October 2004.) and any desired extensions thereto.

5.4.
Sensitive Information

The ability to interact with XMPP entities via a web browser or other non-native application may expose sensitive information (such as support for particular XMPP application protocol extensions) and thereby make it possible to launch attacks that are not possible or that are unlikely on a native XMPP network. Due care must be taken in deciding what information is appropriate for representation in XMPP IRIs or URIs.

In particular, advertising XMPP IRIs/URIs in publicly accessible locations (e.g., on websites) may make it easier for malicious users to harvest XMPP addresses from the authority and path components of XMPP IRIs/URIs and therefore to send unsolicited bulk communications to the users or applications represented by those addresses. Due care should be taken in balancing the benefits of open information exchange against the potential costs of unwanted communications.

5.5.
Semantic Attacks

Despite the existence of non-hierarchical URI schemes such as [MAILTO] (Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, “The mailto URL scheme,” July 1998.), by association human users may expect all URIs to include the "//" characters after the scheme name and ":" character. However, in XMPP IRIs/URIs, the "//" characters precede the authority component rather than the path component. Thus, xmpp://guest@example.com indicates to authenticate as "guest@example.com", whereas xmpp:guest@example.com identifies the node "guest@example.com". Processing applications MUST clearly differentiate between these forms, and user agents SHOULD discourage human users from including the "//" characters in XMPP IRIs/URIs since use of the authority component is envisioned to be helpful only in specialized scenarios, not more generally.

5.6.
Spoofing

The ability to include effectively the full range of Unicode characters in an XMPP IRI may make it easier to execute certain forms of address mimicking (also called "spoofing"). However, XMPP IRIs are no different from other IRIs in this regard, and applications that will present XMPP IRIs to human users must adhere to best practices regarding address mimicking in order to help prevent attacks that result from spoofed addresses (e.g., the phenomenon known as "phishing"). For details, refer to the Security Considerations of [IRI] (Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, “Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs),” January 2005.).

Author's Address

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights,
licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78,
and except as set forth therein,
the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR,
THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY),
THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM
ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to
rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available,
or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights,
patents or patent applications,
or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard.
Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgment

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by
the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).